Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract:

The presentation will analyse three case studies, where rural communities have to deal with the Soviet-era architectural legacies established by architectural historians and cultural policy. We will show how different ideological representations of countryside affect the rural everyday.

Paper long abstract:

Rural landscapes are typically imagined featuring old farm or manor houses, preferably dating back in centuries. However, rural built environment also holds legacies from later periods (e.g. the Soviet era), which meanings and connotations are still negotiated in discursive fields. In Estonia, much of the Soviet rural architecture consists of various agricultural premises, many of which have been falling apart after the dissolution of the collective farms in the 1990s, contributing to the discourse of backward rural areas. Besides the agricultural houses, other premises were built. In the 1970-80s, the young generation of open-minded architects projected a number of public buildings in rural areas. Though for art historians their aesthetic value is high, this view is rarely shared by local communities. In this presentation, we will discuss three case studies, where local communities face the dilemma of dealing with the built Soviet-era legacies and entangled heritage established by architectural historians and cultural policy. The cases reveal diverse tensions, adaptations, durations and failures in accommodating social practices with quasi-rural infrastructures of the collapsed regime. Rather than analysing the architectural value of the buildings, we seek to open the complex process of negotiations between policy makers, local communities and cultural elite in co-producing the cultural heritage and the rural. Based on interviews with different key stakeholders, Facebook posts, observations and media analysis, we will show how mobilised politics and different ideological representations of countryside affect the rural everyday.